Thomas Fleming. Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr,and the Future of America. New York:
Basic Books, 1999. xiv + 446 pp. $30.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-465-01736-2.
Reviewed by Michael P. Gabriel (Department of History, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania)
Published on H-Pol (June, 2000)
Hamilton, Burr, and Politics in the Early Republic
Thomas Fleming’s Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron
Burr and the Future of America, is a highly readable account of the fateful “interview” between two of the dominant figures in the early republic. Geared towards the
general public, the book offers far more than another
study of the duel, however. As the subtitle indicates,
Fleming also explores the era’s volatile political background and how later American history was influenced
by it. Throughout the 406 pages of text, the author incorporates into his narrative such issues as the rise of
Napoleon Bonaparte, the possible secession of New England and the West, and the Burr Conspiracy.
pires achieved. He would not accumulate wealth, join
the British-influenced Episcopal Church, or do anything
that would threaten his honor or political viability. He
would even fight a duel, although he opposed them on
“ ‘religious and moral principles’ ” and had lost his eldest son in one. Burr was “something new and important in American life, a professional politician” who actively sought power (p. 121). He conferred with Federalists, listened not disapprovingly of their talk of creating
an independent northern confederation, and proposed “a
union of all honest men,” a dig at partisans in both parties. Fleming speculates that this was the true origin of
Hamilton’s hatred of Burr. The former Secretary of the
Treasury feared that the Vice-President would supplant
his leadership of the Federalists and prevent him from
achieving his destiny.
The book opens in January 1804 with a comparison
of Hamilton and Burr. Although they were political enemies, the two Revolutionary War veterans had much in
common. Both “General” Hamilton and “Colonel” Burr
were heavily indebted, politically ambitious, and located
on the margins of power. Hamilton headed the defeated
Federalist Party, but was increasingly isolated as its other
members sought a more centrist position. Burr was the
Vice-President but had lost Thomas Jefferson’s trust as a
result of his actions in the contested presidential election
of 1800. Still, both men saw a glimmer of hope that they
would be restored to positions of authority. Jefferson’s
policies, such as the Louisiana Purchase and his assault
on an independent judiciary, had alienated not only Federalists, but also moderate Democratic-Republicans.
Much of the middle portion of Duel deals with Burr’s
failed 1804 attempt to win the New York governorship,
which he hoped to use as a steppingstone to a presidential bid. Fleming is especially strong at illustrating the vicious political infighting that took place. Quoting extensively, he shows how the pro-Jefferson alliance between
the Clinton and Livingston families repeatedly smeared
Burr and helped cause his landslide defeat.
Surprisingly, Hamilton largely did not participate in
this mudslinging. Although he spoke against Burr in private, he did not actively campaign against him. Still,
Fleming sees this as the origins of the famous encounter.
He argues that Burr learned of Hamilton’s comments and
According to Fleming, Hamilton was motivated by
the desire for permanent fame, such as founders of em-
1
H-Net Reviews
decided to challenge him to a duel. Fleming asserts that
the Vice-President had become enchanted with the idea
of restoring his political fortunes and extracting revenge
on Jefferson with a bold venture. He would lead an army
of westerners to conquer Spanish Florida and/or Texas
and possibly even the newly-acquired Louisiana Territory. Challenging Hamilton would not only discredit
or destroy a long-time political nemesis, but would also
eliminate a possible rival to his becoming an American
Bonaparte. The author provides elaborate details about
the events immediately proceeding the duel, Burr’s mortal wounding of his opponent, and the duel’s aftermath.
Although many in both parties disliked the domineering Hamilton, they did not want to see him die in such a
senseless manner. Burr escaped prosecution, but further
tarnished his reputation.
this point, however, one was dead and the other discredited.
While Duel is generally good, it needs a tighter
chronology. The sequence of events is occasionally difficult to follow because Fleming jumps forward and back
in time. More significantly, the author should develop
further why Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel after
his failed gubernatorial run. Why would not the VicePresident have sought satisfaction from someone who
actively worked against him, such as George and DeWitt Clinton or the slanderous newspaper editor, James
Cheetham, instead of Hamilton? Fleming’s interpretation is plausible, but needs greater explication. Despite
these considerations, Duel is still worthwhile and neatly
fits with the recent scholarship on Hamilton.[1] Drawing
upon both primary and secondary sources, it offers useThe book’s final section focuses on Burr’s later ca- ful personal insights on the two main characters, Jefferreer, his western conspiracy and possible British sup- son, and the thoroughly corrupt General James Wilkinport for the venture, and his 1807 trial for treason. son. It also helps illuminate the complex web of foreign
Interestingly, Fleming argues that, during this period, affairs, personal ambition, and partisan politics that tanBurr became a surrogate Hamilton. In one of his last gled early U.S. history, as well as the widespread accepacts as Vice-President, he presided over Federalist judge tance of dueling. Any student or scholar interested in
Samuel Chase’s impeachment trial and derailed the rad- this period could benefit from this book.
ical Democratic-Republicans’ attack on the judiciary.
Notes
Similarly, Burr’s acquittal for treason “banned the evil
genie of ’constructive treason’ – the conspiracy with[1]. See Brookhiser, Richard. Alexander Hamilton:
out the overt act – from American jurisprudence forever” American. New York: Free Press, 1999; Kennedy, Roger
(pp. 393-394). Through these actions, Burr strength- G. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character.
ened the courts against potentially tyrannical, popularly- New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; and Rogow,
elected assemblies and thereby “profoundly strengthened Arnold A. A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and
the conservative side of the American experiment” (p. Aaron Burr. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998.
394). Fleming concludes by speculating that had either
Copyright (c) 2000 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This
Hamilton or Burr been available immediately before or
during the War of 1812, they might have achieved their work may be copied for non-profit educational use if
ambitions. Voters could well have turned to either man proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other
to save the country from failing Jeffersonian policies. By permission, please contact [email protected].
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at:
https://networks.h-net.org/h-pol
Citation: Michael P. Gabriel. Review of Fleming, Thomas, Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr,and the Future of
America. H-Pol, H-Net Reviews. June, 2000.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=4193
Copyright © 2000 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for
nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication,
originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews
editorial staff at [email protected].
2